CDC wants more power on disciplinary matters

THE Central Disciplinary Committee, whose handling of the Omagh suspensions was the subject of such controversy, is demanding more power in an effort to deal with GAA indiscipline.

In its report to Congress, the CDC admits that “a number of deficiencies” in the Association’s rules and procedures were exposed by the DRA. The Committee believes it must have the power to deal with all transgressions on the field of play - whether or not they have been dealt with by the referee.

The clear intention of the new disciplinary code was to streamline procedures, speed up the process and provide easy access to players seeking redress when they felt aggrieved by decisions taken against them.

Echoing the comments of Director-General Liam Mulvihill, the Committee says the new framework should not be used as a means of avoiding “personal or collective responsibility” for transgressions.

Neither should it be used to challenge “legitimate” decisions by referees and disciplinary authorities. They exist to protect players and present their games to the credit of the Association.

The report of the three-man National Referees Appointment Body (Tony O’Keeffe, Frank Burke and John Costelloe) calls on the GAA to establish and promote a “culture of respect” for match referees.

It also notes the “subtle but nevertheless concerted attempts” to influence referees either before games, during it or afterwards.

It has evolved into “a growing trend”, it states, saying efforts in latter times had brought little honour to individuals or units responsible.

The report says the overall view of refereeing standards generally in the past year was “positive”. This view is confirmed in the report of the Referees administrative body, Coiste Riaracháin Náisiúnta na Réiteoirí, managed by Jimmy Darcy. He notes that the assessment of inter-county referees “provided evidence of consistently high standards” of performance, across both the Leagues and championship.

However, of 31 assessments in the senior hurling championship, only one was rated “fair” and none merited a “poor” response. In the senior football championship, just five of 63 assessments were “fair” and a mere one was “poor”. The Club Development and Planning Committee, chaired by Limerick’s Pat Fitzgerald, expresses both disappointment and frustration at the lack of response at club and county level to some of their initiatives.

“We bemoan the shortage of volunteers and the huge workload undertaken by too few, but we are in shut-down mode when it comes to listening to solutions and delegating in a positive manner to others, especially our youth,’’ the report states.

“While clubs are slow to take these programmes, the finger of blame must point more often at county officials whose negativity to anything save county teams, county finance or physical facilities is startling.

Note: The deliberations of the Marketing Sub-Committee runs to a mere ten lines, despite the fact that it held 14 meetings and a further 16 meetings of sub-groups to compete a report which has never been published. It points out that the report was presented to a meeting of the Management Committee in Killarney in February of last year, to a workshop at Congress and that specific action steps were then presented to the Management in July.

The last line of the report is the most revealing. It states: “however, no decisions were taken in respect of the recommendations and no action has been taken on the report’’.